About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
'd say that. >> and we found that the pentagon is saying it too. the defense advanced research projects agency, known as darpa, did its own analysis, and we obtained this internal memo that concludes there is: do you feel vindicated after all these years? >> i don't have any real need for vindication. i know what i've seen. >> that was a pretty big smile on your face, though. >> it is good. it's not bad. certainly, it's good. >> the pentagon is funding more experiments at the naval research lab in washington, d.c., and at mckubre's lab in california. we wondered what richard garwin would think of the defense department's appraisal. "the experiments leave no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced." >> well, that's a statement. >> you just don't buy that. >> well, i am living proof that there's doubt. now, they can say that excess heat is being produced, but they can't say there's no doubt. all they can say is, they don't doubt, but i doubt. >> if you asked me, "is this gonna have any impact on our energy policy?" it's impossible to say, because we don't fundamentally understand the
article saying republicans would hit steep cuts hitting the pentagon. here is how the defense sector is fairing right now. shall we take a look if we don't have that, we will bring it to you when we do. john harwood, live in washington. hi, john. >> there is no more clarity around this budget sequester situation than there is about the italian elections that michelle was talking about earlier. you've got many republicans as well as democrats saying, either publicly or privately, oh, it's not that bad. if you're a democrat will it cut defense. some say okay, it'll cut spending overall. that's fine too. you have president obama with public pressure trying to convince the american people that bad things are going to happen and put pressure on republicans. he also sent senate remarks in the morning to the white house a way out for both sides. >> democrats, like me, need to acknowledge that we're going to have to make modest reforms in medicare if we want the program there for future generations and if we hope to maintain our ability to invest in critical things like education, research a
to see you. i wanted to put this up. this is what's on the cover of "usa today." pentagon warns of huge cuts. when you think about what's going on in washington, right now, and you think about the sequester that may or may not happen, and you think about your history in washington, do you think that we will have the sequester? >> andrew, i don't know. i think it's a very complicated situation. i think we had a great opportunity and i actually thought there was some reasonable chance it might happen, which was to have a grand bargain that could have addressed what is really unsustainable and deeply dangerous long-term fiscal situation and i think if we had done that, not only would be useful for the long run but i think could have generated confidence in the shorter run and promote jobs now. now instead of that we have a happen has 5rd process. a sequester we're facing. it's a terrible piece of legislation. it arbitrarily cuts defense and nondefense without thoughtfully doing so. instead of being phased in so we'd have more room for recovery, it hits abruptly. and it's far, far from clea
's not going to be any opportunity to cut pentagon spending in any serious way if you don't go over the cliff. so there is some stuff in there that i as a democrat don't like. but i think everybody's going to put something in the pot in order to balance the deficit. we did a lousy job in january on the tax side and i hope that -- i think it's better to go over the cliff than do a lousy job -- >> how many people do you know on your side of the field who actually agree with you? >> very few. look they're politicians. they want to spend as much money as they possibly can and they don't want to pay for it. >> who agrees with you? >> oh, i don't know. i bet -- oh, god, joe agrees with me. >> you forgot. the other thing, howard, and i'm just alluding to it, there will be no return to the bush era tax rates on anyone under $400,000? >> right. >> okay. so take that amount of money, whatever that is per year. how much do you need -- how many loopholes do you need to close? what is the marginal rate have to be on people above 400 to replace that potential revenue? it's 100%, isn't it? >> but i don't --
taking the civilian workers when our country is still at war at the pentagon and putting them on four days a week work is still waste. let those who think they've identified waste and no doubt there are efficiencies that can be found put their proposals forward and let those proposals be weighed in the context of a balanced approach. the question isn't whether we should leave any category immune. the question is whether we should have a balanced approach. and to assume, before anyone has laid out any kind of vision of how that $85 billion a year could be cut, that it must be possible and that everything else has to be ruled out seems to me to be a extraordinarily irresponsible approach. of course there are instances of waste in the federal government. there are also instances of huge unmet needs of diseases where we could find cures that save tens of thousands of people's lives in the next several years. but we're cutting the budget instead and denying ourselves the chances to find those cures. of infrastructure investments where we're risking more bridges collapsing and all we're doi
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)